--- Bengt Kleberg <> wrote:
> i know that you do not appreciate meta discussions, but i see no way
> to avoid it.
>> taking your suggested action i ignored (if you did not write ignore,
> and think that the exact word is really important, let me know which
> word to use) the 2 asides in the previous email. there was nothing
> else, so i had nothing to write.
>> perhaps you did not envision this situation when you suggested the
> action?
>> if this is not enough to make you get back to the subject under
> discussion, please let me know.
I asked two direct questions, if you wish not to answer them that's up
to you.
You keep claiming that the benchmarks game does not have sufficiently
many measuring points during benchmarking to be able to spot anomalous
behaviour.
Let me explain it to you one more time - /we know/ that the benchmarks
game's 3 measuring points /were sufficient/ to spot anomalous behaviour
in some binary-trees programs because that is how someone spotted the
anomalous behaviour!
There's no particular reason you would have known that is how the
anomalous behaviour was detected, but now you do know - you now know
that the benchmarks game measuring points have been sufficient to spot
anomolous behaviour, your claim is untrue.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs